![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptOoh, another rant? By all means!
So, let's point out the source first. Your target in the crosshairs is Ken Klukowski, writing a column entitled "God Save America from Millitant Atheists". You can guess where this is going. Klukowski is up in arms that courts continue to hear the arguments of Michael Newdow, avowed atheist and secular society promoter. Furthermore, Klukowski fears that Mr. Newdow and others will soon be successful in their challenges if President Obama is allowed to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.
While Mr. Newdow has been unsuccessful to this point on any of his suits (and odds are good that this latest one, requesting the removal of "So help me God" and the two invoking and benedicting prayers from the presidential inauguration ceremony, will also fail), that the courts continue to hear him and push his cases to the Supremes indicates that he is obviously making solid points that require the learned legal opinions of the Justices.
The current test supposedly underway, the "establishment test" asks whether ceremonies of that nature violate the establishment clause. Given that most prayers are specifically nondenominational, the best argument there could be made that Theists are establishing their religion. Along with the guidelines for "legislative prayer" and the idea of "ceremonial deism", where we say words but intend as liberal an interpretation of them as possible, he's probably not going to win. Significantly more disturbing, though, is the shift in the test that will supposedly happen now, the "coercion test", where you ask the people who were there if they felt coerced into following or supporting a religion. Can you adequately ensure that if they say "Yes", that they don't become instant social pariahs or are subjected to retribution from their community, authority figures who are pushing this on them, or the government itself? And how many people or percentage thereof does it take for the event to fail this test? Considering, as Klukowski notes, 93% of the populace professes a theistic faith of some sort, they're not going to feel oppressed by someone offering theistic words. As an exercise, though, I wonder how many of those 93% will suddenly feel very oppressed if the person benedicting is of a non-Christian religion. Reference to people protesting practicing Hindu giving legislative prayer, requiring the Sergeant-At-Arms to remove the morons from the gallery here. If that's what the reactions are going to be, I think the Justices may want to say, "Well, fine. Until the fools among you who can't respect others go to the hells of their own making, or everybody decides that they're okay with other people expressing their own beliefs right next to yours, we're not letting anybody do anything. Motion granted, strip all references to theism out of our ceremonies"
Sounds to me like the "coercion test" is giving in to the tyranny of the majority in a really bad way. The Klukowski is getting bent out of shape because people who don't believe in God are asking their beliefs be respected in the halls of government is unwise. Using the Washington State Capitol incident as a sign of intolerance of theists while neglecting to mention that someone stole the sign and dumped it as a sign of their great tolerance for atheists is not giving he whole story.
Last example for this rant - replace "atheists" and "religion" with, say, "homosexuals" or "racial minorities" and then re-apply this "coercion test". "Well, hi there, you seven homosexuals in a group of 100 - do you feel oppressed if someone talks about sexuality as if there were only heterosexuals, even if they only talk about it in the most general of terms and don't get into details like kinks? And would you be willing to say that in front of a court, with your name on the record, when you know that your employer might fire you, your community might ostracize you, and you could have heterosexuals demonizing you by name if you do and become a known homosexual?" (Oh, wait...) "What about you, Ms. Minority? Would you feel oppressed if someone talked about race as if there were only white folk around? And if you wanted the government to recognize that there are other races, and to stop talking as if there were only white folk, with those same kinds of threats, would you speak up?" (Wait, we did that, too, didn't we?)
Luckily for us, there are people who are willing to speak up on these kinds of matters. 7% or no, this country, and its government, are for everyone, no matter what you believe or don't. This is why the Justices will keep hearing Michael Newdow, and why Klukowski is quaking in his boots at the possibility of Justices who believe this is true becoming the majority. After all, an act of legislation placed words into the Pledge of Allegiance - another act of legislation, or of the judiciary, could remove them.
So, let's point out the source first. Your target in the crosshairs is Ken Klukowski, writing a column entitled "God Save America from Millitant Atheists". You can guess where this is going. Klukowski is up in arms that courts continue to hear the arguments of Michael Newdow, avowed atheist and secular society promoter. Furthermore, Klukowski fears that Mr. Newdow and others will soon be successful in their challenges if President Obama is allowed to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.
While Mr. Newdow has been unsuccessful to this point on any of his suits (and odds are good that this latest one, requesting the removal of "So help me God" and the two invoking and benedicting prayers from the presidential inauguration ceremony, will also fail), that the courts continue to hear him and push his cases to the Supremes indicates that he is obviously making solid points that require the learned legal opinions of the Justices.
The current test supposedly underway, the "establishment test" asks whether ceremonies of that nature violate the establishment clause. Given that most prayers are specifically nondenominational, the best argument there could be made that Theists are establishing their religion. Along with the guidelines for "legislative prayer" and the idea of "ceremonial deism", where we say words but intend as liberal an interpretation of them as possible, he's probably not going to win. Significantly more disturbing, though, is the shift in the test that will supposedly happen now, the "coercion test", where you ask the people who were there if they felt coerced into following or supporting a religion. Can you adequately ensure that if they say "Yes", that they don't become instant social pariahs or are subjected to retribution from their community, authority figures who are pushing this on them, or the government itself? And how many people or percentage thereof does it take for the event to fail this test? Considering, as Klukowski notes, 93% of the populace professes a theistic faith of some sort, they're not going to feel oppressed by someone offering theistic words. As an exercise, though, I wonder how many of those 93% will suddenly feel very oppressed if the person benedicting is of a non-Christian religion. Reference to people protesting practicing Hindu giving legislative prayer, requiring the Sergeant-At-Arms to remove the morons from the gallery here. If that's what the reactions are going to be, I think the Justices may want to say, "Well, fine. Until the fools among you who can't respect others go to the hells of their own making, or everybody decides that they're okay with other people expressing their own beliefs right next to yours, we're not letting anybody do anything. Motion granted, strip all references to theism out of our ceremonies"
Sounds to me like the "coercion test" is giving in to the tyranny of the majority in a really bad way. The Klukowski is getting bent out of shape because people who don't believe in God are asking their beliefs be respected in the halls of government is unwise. Using the Washington State Capitol incident as a sign of intolerance of theists while neglecting to mention that someone stole the sign and dumped it as a sign of their great tolerance for atheists is not giving he whole story.
Last example for this rant - replace "atheists" and "religion" with, say, "homosexuals" or "racial minorities" and then re-apply this "coercion test". "Well, hi there, you seven homosexuals in a group of 100 - do you feel oppressed if someone talks about sexuality as if there were only heterosexuals, even if they only talk about it in the most general of terms and don't get into details like kinks? And would you be willing to say that in front of a court, with your name on the record, when you know that your employer might fire you, your community might ostracize you, and you could have heterosexuals demonizing you by name if you do and become a known homosexual?" (Oh, wait...) "What about you, Ms. Minority? Would you feel oppressed if someone talked about race as if there were only white folk around? And if you wanted the government to recognize that there are other races, and to stop talking as if there were only white folk, with those same kinds of threats, would you speak up?" (Wait, we did that, too, didn't we?)
Luckily for us, there are people who are willing to speak up on these kinds of matters. 7% or no, this country, and its government, are for everyone, no matter what you believe or don't. This is why the Justices will keep hearing Michael Newdow, and why Klukowski is quaking in his boots at the possibility of Justices who believe this is true becoming the majority. After all, an act of legislation placed words into the Pledge of Allegiance - another act of legislation, or of the judiciary, could remove them.
